Can you. . I (. Cleverbot yeah of course I can paint your ceiling." Michelangelo scoffed to himself, "gonna paint a bunch of dudes with they dick outs on it tho Can you I ( Cleverbot yeah of course can paint your ceiling " Michelangelo scoffed to himself "gonna a bunch dudes with they dick outs on it tho
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (74)
[ 74 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - mightypoggers
Reply +122 123456789123345869
(03/28/2014) [-]
goddamn ninja turtle
#26 to #1 - androiddxx
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
Listen here you little ****
please don't hurt me I'm fragile
Michael Bay is making the movie
#27 to #26 - mightypoggers
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
I know. and it doesn't make me happy.
User avatar #29 to #27 - androiddxx
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
Teenage Mutant Exploding Turtles
Teenage Mutant Exploding Turtles
Teenage Mutant Exploding Turtles
Turtles in an H-bomb
MICHAEL BAY!
#30 to #29 - mightypoggers
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
this comment. I love it!!
this comment. I love it!!
#34 to #26 - anon id: 14098967
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
they cut Michael Bay from writing it, so he's just now producing it, Jonathan Liebesman is directing it now, and it looks great. get hyped, lil *****, ***** bout to git real TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES - Official Trailer (2014) [HD]
User avatar #61 to #34 - androiddxx
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
The Shredder is white.

I'm not even that big of a TMNT fan. But that doesn't sit right with me. I don't know, maybe they'll do something interesting with it. The turtles themselves at least seem like themselves. But I'll have to see before I make any real decision personally.

Though I am a big Transformers fan. And after seeing what Michael Bay did/is doing with the TF movies, I'm still a bit apprehensive, even if he is just producing.
#3 - autonomous
Reply +113 123456789123345869
(03/28/2014) [-]
User avatar #10 to #3 - ryderjbudde
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
*small
#4 - sindrifreyr
Reply +107 123456789123345869
(03/28/2014) [-]
I ******* love Michelangelo's statues of women. Its like hes never actually seen one before.
User avatar #6 to #4 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
Well, he was sculpting in a style reminiscent of the Classical.
#57 to #6 - migueldecervantes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
He was sculpting in classical style.
User avatar #60 to #57 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
Isn't that basically what I said?
#62 to #60 - migueldecervantes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
Yes, but not that concisely, clearly and eloquently.
User avatar #63 to #62 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
On that, we'll have to disagree. I'm eloquent as ****.
#64 to #63 - migueldecervantes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
There is no disagreement to be had; "He was sculpting in classical style" is more eloquent than "Well, he was sculpting in a style reminiscent of the Classical".
User avatar #65 to #64 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
Eloquence is fluent or persuasive speech or writing, both of which are subjective. So, yeah, there's plenty of disagreement to be had. What you said is certainly shorter than what I said, certainly, but more eloquent? Debatable.

I would argue that mine is the better sentence because it leaves room for Michelangelo to be heavily influenced by the Greeks and Romans, while still putting his own touch on their school of sculpture. "He was sculpting in classical style" makes it sound as if he were completely miming classic works.
#66 to #65 - migueldecervantes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
No. "He was completely mimicking classical works" would sound as if he were completely miming [sic] classical works.

How is eloquence subjective? What relationship is there between eloquence and objectivity/subjectivity? You seem to be either a) using words you don't understand too well, or b) using subjectivity as a postmodern cop-out from this debate.
User avatar #67 to #66 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
Implications are important to consider, imo. I felt the need to imply Michelangelo was merely influenced by the classical in order to be as clear as possible and not invite criticism by a Funnyjunky who happened to be an expert on Michelangelo's style. Obviously, you did not feel the same.

Whether writing is eloquent depends on whether it is especially fluent or persuasive, both of which are not objective qualities. An eloquent sentence to you could be confusing or utter **** to somebody else.
#68 to #67 - migueldecervantes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
You did nothing but reword what you've said already. "Eloquence is subjective."

How can something be clear and fluent for me, and at the same time confusing or "utter ****" to somebody else?
User avatar #69 to #68 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
Eloquence is subjective because being eloquent depends on subjective qualities, ie ones that are not objective or universal. Whether somebody's speech is "eloquent" is an opinion. There's no way to empirically prove eloquence. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that.

Really, you answered your own question, given that we're even having this squabble in the first place. We don't even seem to agree on the definition of the word eloquence, even though I more or less quoted its Merriam-Webster entry.
#70 to #69 - migueldecervantes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
There is a reason wherefore we like or dislike certain things. The reason being complex does not make it subjective.

You are simply copping-out.

Eloquent is an opinion? I don't even know what to say to such a stupid claim.

By this idiotic logic, there is no way of proving anything because everything will end up being "subjective" in the end because you experience the world through your own lens.

Are you a solipsist or something?
User avatar #71 to #70 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
My logic doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Whether or not you like something or think something is a good instance of whatever it is most certainly IS subjective. Are you suggesting that liking certain foods or colors can be somehow objectively proven?

If a politician gave a speech, one of us could like every single word of that speech and believe the speech was persuasive. The other could, by that some token, think the speech was nonsense. These are opinions, and there's no real way for either of us to prove themselves right and the other wrong.
#72 to #71 - migueldecervantes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
Huh... Okay, I'll try one last time, and I'll be crystal clear now:

In your politician speech scenario, one group would be right in their "opinion" and one would be wrong. The right group could prove the wrong group right by arguing that the speech was eloquent for certain reasons (i.e: it contained some concepts relevant to eloquence). For instance, the speaker used non-deceptive, active voice; he never stuttered (is stuttering subjective now as well?); he used brief sentences to get through his exposition; and upon reaching the emotional climax of his speech used a long sentences full of powerful verbs (read: clear verbs (just so you don't say that "power" is subjective...)) and strong adjectives (idem as for "powerful"); he used subtle eloquent variation; etc.

Aesthetic quality is debatable. That DOES NOT make it subjective.
User avatar #73 to #72 - schneidend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/30/2014) [-]
Neither group could be conclusively right or wrong in this instance, since everything you're describing the "right" group doing is based on opinion, not fact. One group could argue better than the other group.
In this same scenario, the "wrong" group could, by your logic, make themselves "right" by pointing out flaws in the politician's logic, a misuse of a word, a condescending tone towards a particular social group, an overemphasis on another group, or any number of other hypothetical points. Likewise, the "right" group could disagree with all of those points and provide their own refutations, ad nauseum. Again, one side could certainly argue better than the other, but that could be either side, and the perceived victor could change depending on the observers or with different groups should the politician make the same speech at another location. Regardless of how that scenario plays out, nobody is going to write down the winning argument and claim it to be an objective fact.

Subjectivity is what allows for the possibility of argument. Aesthetic quality certainly is debatable, because every observer will have their own ideas of aesthetic quality. Two equally proficient musicians could listen to the same piece of music by a third party, debate musical theory all day, and never come to a consensus as to whether the piece is a good one or a bad one. There exists certain criterion with any aesthetic, but these are ultimately arbitrary and dictated by the current trends of that medium. Something that breaks the mold of this paradigm could be buried in hatred and never achieve more than cult following, or it could be beloved and become the new standard of quality.
#74 to #73 - migueldecervantes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/31/2014) [-]
Misusing a word or condescending a certain social group is not decided by anyone's opinion. It is a truth; a fact. No one can misuse a word in your opinion. They either do or don't.

I am glad you used the musicians' example. There is a rather amazing consensus in musicology that Bach was the greatest composer of all time. Actually, any musician who has studied music theory (I include myself in that trend) will tell you that Bach had a talent that never has been, and possibly may never be, equated. Ask anyone who does not comprehend music just as well and they will tell you that Bach does not impress them as much.

You know why?

Because they cannot grasp the quality of his music, for they are too uncultured in that field to be capable of doing so. It is not opinion. It has no relationship to the concepts of subjectivity or objectivity (mind you, an opinion can be objective (opinions are what make debates possible, not subjectivity)).

I am growing tired of this debate, and would advise you to read Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill if you want to see my points supported and furthered by a decent philosopher (which I am not).
User avatar #13 to #4 - osimonmagus
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
More like you never saw a women in the time of Angelo you ******* idiot.
User avatar #14 to #13 - sindrifreyr
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
I am aware of the art history of that time and the limited access to womens' bodies but most men at some point in their life did see their wifes or girlfriends naked. I'm sensing that you're being pretty hostile because of this one comment. Do you wanna talk about it?
User avatar #45 to #4 - odapac
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
Most likely he sculpted from male figures.
#16 to #4 - cuteboot
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
The reason they look so weird is because he only used "body builder" type women.
That explains their ******* weird boobies.
User avatar #5 to #4 - deadmansdope
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(03/28/2014) [-]
Well, you know...
#19 to #4 - hackhazardly
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
Reminded me of this.
#20 to #4 - incognitoad
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
I've seen some ****.
#9 to #4 - juter
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
That's what they looked like back then.
That's what they looked like back then.
User avatar #7 to #4 - bothemastaofall
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
*Statue is finshed*
There you go! All done.
But I asked for a woman.
You did? ...Ah ****! Here I'll just sculpt some pus looking things where the boobs should be. That'll do it.
What about the massive well defined pectorals?
I'm sure nobody will notice those.
#11 to #7 - anon id: 492f0c34
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
>massive

dyel, faggot, dyel ?
#8 to #4 - waterjug
Reply +35 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
those boobs look like Mr. Garrison's when he becomes Mrs. Garrison
#50 to #8 - supercookieduster
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
perfect
#15 - canyou
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
My username is relevant!
My username is relevant!
#58 to #15 - zynphius
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
**zynphius rolled image**
User avatar #59 to #58 - canyou
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
I forgive you
#22 - LordFapsalot
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
#38 - massengit
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
**massengit rolled image**
#56 - include
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
#24 - hagerusaito
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
**hagerusaito rolled image** Mfw I get a painting of a bunch of dudes with their dicks out.
#25 to #24 - hagerusaito
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
I... that was my first roll... and... god dammit.
User avatar #53 to #25 - quotes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
*roll image*
#54 to #53 - quotes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
**quotes rolled image** i keep forgetting i swear admin needs to fix that
**quotes rolled image** i keep forgetting i swear admin needs to fix that
#31 - anon id: 51126c84
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
Fun fact: the pope gave the job to Michelangelo at the urging of a jealous rival who wanted to humiliate him. He thought Mikey was so good at sculpture he had to be **** at painting, so this would be a monumental cock-up that would haunt him forever and finally knock him out of the pope's favor. Unfortunately for him Michelangelo knew this and decided to ******* nail it!
User avatar #52 to #31 - quotes
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(03/29/2014) [-]
but he injured his back in the process